Femoral versus acetabular osteotomy for treating combined version deformities leading to femoroacetabular impingement: a case-control matched study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between anteverting proximal femoral osteotomy (APFO) and anteverting periacetabular osteotomy (APAO) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) due to combined acetabular retroversion (ARV) and femoral retrotorsion (FRT). We also compared these outcomes with hip arthroscopy (HA) for FAIS without ARV or FRT. Twelve patients with ARV and FRT underwent either APAO (six) or APFO (six) at two centres. A control group of 24 patients underwent HA for FAIS without version abnormality. Outcome measures included various hip scores, time to radiological bony union, complications, and conversion to hip arthroplasty. At the 2-year follow-up, no AFPO or APAO hips required arthroplasty. Patient-reported outcome scores showed no significant difference between the APAO and APFO groups: Non-Arthritic Hips Scores (NAHS) (APAO: median 72, range 52–78; APFO: 76, 52–80, P = .76), International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12) (APAO: 64, 48–70 vs. APFO: 55, 46–72, P = .57), EuroQol 5 Dimension Visual Analogue Scale (APAO: 72, 57–78 vs. APFO: 75, 49–80 P = .78), and University of California Los Angeles Score (APAO: 7, 4–8 vs. APFO: 6, 4–9 P = .43). APAO patients achieved radiological union faster (10.2 weeks: 6.6–19.3 vs. 19.2 weeks: 12–23, P = .05). Aside from metalwork removal, one AFPO patient required revision intramedullary nail to induce union. Compared to AFPO or APAO, HA patients (NAHS: 86.7, 72.1–94.1; iHOT-12: 73.1, 63.2–88.1) had better outcome scores (P < .05). Both APFO and APAO can achieve good outcomes and short-term survivorship for combined ARV and FRT, although function may be inferior to HA in patients without rotational abnormalities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".